Monday, November 29, 2004


Since the 21 November second round voting in the Ukrainian Presidential elections, I was struggling to just keep up with the events, reading A Fistful Of Euros and other sources;I didn't come to blog about it - so here, some thoughts.

First a bit of history. People prefer to talk about an East/West, or Northwest/Southeast division, but I think a better description is to split the first in two and describe regional differences in three parts. (Of course there are even finer gradations, Alexei of The Russian Dilettante comments about a nine-way one at A Fistful Of Euros.)

Western Ukraine is the onetime Halych (Galicia) and Volodymyr (Vladimir, Ladomeria), Slavic kingdoms which were influeced by (and sometimes occupied by) not only Kyiv or Novgorod but Western neighbours Hungary and Poland, too. They were ruined in the Mongol invasion around 1240, but in the next century briefly grew into one major kingdom in the vacuum, then collapsed under invasions from newly growing Lithuania, and was divided between Lithuania (the Volhynia region) and Poland, which later united. At the same time, after the Rus' church, which previously refused to take sides in the Great Schism, split in three stages (1299-1453-1596, more on this in the Comments), this area was catholicised under Polish rule. When Poland was carved up by Prussia, Russia and Austria in the 18h century, the area mostly fell to Austria. Between the two world wars, this part again belonged to Poland, only after did Stalin add it to Ukraine. However, in the 19th century, the Ukrainian language-nationalist movement and culture was born there.

Northern-Central Ukraine was once the centre of Rus' - Kyiv was the capital of the main Rus' principality. But the Mongols utterly destroyed this region, and its remains were conquered by Lithuania, later to be under ever weaker (and receding towards the West) Polish control. In the time of constant Tatar [remains of the Mongols] - Russian - Ottoman - Polish conflicts, in this area semi-independent Cossacks were settled, who later came under increased Russian central rule - hence the dominant religion, and after later Russian 'orthodoxisation' almost exclusive religion, was Eastern Orthodox, and people feel closer to Russia. However, the "bratstva" brotherhoods that formed to resist Polish catholisation efforts, and other movements that claimed the heritage of the Kyivian Rus' as cultural center, and thought there are too many Finno-Ugrian 'barbarian' traits of Muscovite Russia, stood for an identity separate from Russian - hence they merged with/absorbed Western Ukraine easily. With the exception of Kyiv, this is a mostly agrarian region.

Finally, the Southern and Eastern regions: in this area countless nomadic tribes passed to the West in one thousand years until the Mongols, whose remains (the Golden Horde) established an empire here. Later called Tatars, they became Ottoman vassals. After a period of constant battles, Russia started to conquer and re-settle the area, a process not fully finished until the Crimean War (1853-56). Tough also agrarian, with the ascent of the Soviet Union especially the Eastern part became an industrial center. Dominant religion is Eastern Orthodox, and people obviously feel even closer to Russia.

Now, according to not just the official results: the first region voted overwhelmingly for opposition candidate Yushchenko, the second with a majority for Yushchenko, the third overwhelmingly for government candidate Yanukovych. Tough usually portrayed as the pro-Western democratic candidate vs. the oligarch-supported autocratic candidate in the West, and the mole-of-the-West divisive nationalist candidate vs. the for-the-people guarant of ethnic peace, all four portrayals are half-truths: Yushchenko was himself part of the establishment (led the Central Bank for 8 years, then PM for two), is supported by some oligarchs (blonde businesswoman-turned-politician Tymoshenko among them), he implemented late pay handouts for miners during his PM-ship, and made some cloudy remarks about withdrawing troops from Iraq; Yanukovych certainly has popular support too, while making Russian as second official language is something his party promised earlier but didn't deliver (as Yushchenko, who also promised it, rightly criticised).

I think whatever role foreigners played in organising the opposition and its post-election protests, the mass democratic participation and its peacefulness is a good thing - even more so that the opposing side responded with a similar peaceful mass mobilisation, rather than violence, so far. A less good sign is the wavered separatism in the Southeastern oblasts - and Yushchenko's threats in response.

But the facts that (1) whoever won the elections, the opposing minority is sizeable, (2) these sides are organised and passionate, (3) there is a strong regional pattern, together mean that whoever comes out as victor (even if unfairly or violently), he must give big concessions to (the supporters of) the other side. For example, if Yushchenko wins, and wants economic reforms, he must reassure people in the East that there won't be mass closures and/or sellout of mines. While exit polls and evidence for mass fraud I saw, as well as the repressive behavior of authorities, is compelling evidence that in reality Yushchenko won, the solidifying proposal of repeated elections is what I thought to be the best idea, even before Yushchenko came up with it in his 3-point demands.

Finally, what makes things more difficult is Great Powers meddling: heavy involvement in the campaign and harsh announcements only reinforce the polarisation (by reinforcing the image of the opposing side's vassaldom to the feared foreign power). While Russian Tsar-in-practice Putin's meddling is more heavy-handed, overt and stupid, American meddling is more fine and covert but of similar importance. Some representatives of the EU can also be criticised for some unthought-through declarations - on the other hand, pro-Yanukovych people who protest European involvement forget that observers like OSCE's were officially accredited, and that Ukraine is already part of some European institutions. (Also, while for Russia and the USA, there is a clear geopolitical theme of spheres of influence, in the EU that is not at all clear-cut: while Poland is a strong advocate of Ukraine's Western binding, the larger countries are weary of subsidizing yet another new EU member, and some of them - above all Schröder's Germany - have good relations with Putin's Russia.)

UPDATE: James @ Dead Men Left, apart from quoting an article with a glaring factual error (young blonde opposition sub-leader and minor oligarch Yulia Tymoshenko [<-correct spelling] is there at the protests usually behind Yushchenko, not in a US prison!...), gives his cautioned support for the uprising, where his economy-focused prediction of disillusionment with the opposition leaders' conduct in government sounds the more convincing if I recall what happened after all the revolutions in 1989 and later here in Central-Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Neeka's Backlog writes:

The judges look tired, interrupt every once in while, but let the Yushchenko's team guy finish. Channel 5 interrupts the broadcast from the Supreme Court midway through the questions from Yanukovych's team guy, switching live to Yushchenko's address at Independence Square.

Well, unlike Neeka, who can undoubtedly be happy about the opposition getting coverage at last, I am not sure this is a good thing. It might mean media bias turned around 180 degrees, rather than going away.

[*] Inserted texts in italics: UPDATE 17/12.


At 8:33 PM, Blogger Alex(ei) said...

I don't think the Halych principality was Catholic in its days of independence. Although prince Daniel did at some point (1254) accept a royal title and a crown from the Pope (hoping it would help set up an anti-Tatar coalition), his domain remained Orthodox and he never renounced Orthodoxy. It was only in the late 16th century that Rome, Polish magnates and Jesuits started trying to convert Polish Ukraine to (Eastern-Rite) Catholicism. It took quite some time before the Uniates became the majority denomination in Halych and Volhynia.

At 12:50 AM, Blogger DoDo said...

Hm, I have to look into this. Not that what you wrote isn't convincing already, but I recall something from Hungarian history - a royal marriage or a royal alliance? - that hinted at a Catholic counterpart.

I'll correct the page when I'm done.

At 5:28 PM, Blogger DoDo said...

Tough I did the research, I don't have much time to blog or comment in the rest of today, so just a short note here:

I found the picture is more complex. I spent some time trying to find a religious reference along a Hungarian connection - but tough I found examples of several invasions and alliances, usually by kings who also did proselityzing or forcing conversion for the Pope elsewhere, no such thing.

Then I looked the other way - and found that the entire Kyev church (not just Halych) maintained its ties with Rome after the 1054 schism. Only when Moscow became a center was there a separation, but at the same time there was a split on Ukrainian territory - and the following complex struggle also involved Russians rooting out the Catholics in Central-North Ukraine.

At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 5:58 PM, Blogger DoDo said...

My first research, as mentioned above, concerned Hungary-Halych relations.

The conquest of Halych or preceding areas was attempted by the first crowned Hungarian king (Stephen I, early 11th century), by two kings at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, and later in the 12th century by king Bela The Blind (=Bela III). Before the Mongol invasion, there was a Halych succession struggle, in which Hungarian king Andrew II made several attempts at installing his son Kalman there (each lasting a few years; one of them, from 1213, started with the Halych nobles inviting him back, after they murdered the prince installed by a Slavic king who threw out Kalman last time). When Halych had a short golden age afterwards, its king Lev Danilovych had a Hungarian wife. In the 14th century, when Hungary got Angevin kings, they got control of the eastern Halych-Ladomeria areas in the same time they also got in a close relationship (later very close: dual kingdom in personal union) with Poland.

Now, most of the above listed kings also happened to be the most active at forced christianisation/catholitisation, which as usual was a bloody matter. I found several references to their activity in conquered Southern Slavic areas and against religious minorities at home. But none to such efforts in Halych.

One special mention deserves Bela The Blind, who was originally installed by the Byzantine ruler who attempted to capitalise from a succession struggle, spreading Orthodoxy Westward - however, Bela secured the support of elites in the Hungarian kingdom by turning into a catholic neophyte, he even battled the Byzantine Empire.

Another special mention deserves Andrew II. The last great nomadic tribe before the Mongols, the Cumans, who were earlier admitted to Northwestern Hungary but then evicted, had in his time a country in what is now Moldavia. Tough earlier they fought against Hungary as allies of Halych, in 1227 a leader of them converted to catholicism, and a diocese belonging under the Hungarian cardinal was established at Milko[*].

Now this points to something I should have guessed from the superficial nature of forced mass conversions, and the fact that something that is recognised as final a millenium later could have been viewed as temporary by contemporaries: the separation of Catholic and Orthodox churches wasn't a simple matter, instead separation was at first fluid, and demarcation came about in a complex and drawn-out process, as I found out when I read up on it.

In 1054, the Great Schism was between the Pope in Rome and the Greek Church at Constantinople. However, the Kyivian and lesser Eastern Slavic hierarchs continued to maintain relations with both sides, despite requests to the contrary from both.

The first stage of separation came in 1299, when the Metropolitan of Kyiv moved to Moscow, which was finalised when in 1328 he changed his title to Metropolitan of Moscow - but even before, in 1303, a new church and the position 'Metropolitan of Halych' was created, later relocated to Kyiv (with the title changing to 'Metropolitan of Kyiv-Halych and All Rus'). The two churches opposed each other.

The second stage of separation came in 1453. Until then, the Halych/Kyiv church's representatives took part in Catholic Councils, but in that year both the break of communion with Rome was adopted, and the separation of the Kyiv-Halych and Muscovite Metropoliae officially accepted by all sides.

The third stage of separation came as a result of Polish recatholisation efforts: in 1596 - a time when Polish rule reached beyond Kyiv -, in the 'Union of Brest', the Kyiv-Halych church was declared part of the Catholic church - but many believers and clergy rebelled, the Metropolitan was hunted away from Kyiv, and in 1620 the split into the Greek Catholic Uniates and the Muscovite-allied Greek Orthodox was finished when, with the help of the Cossack leader, a new Metropolitan was installed in Kyiv.

While Western Europe was devastated by the 1618-1648 Thirty Years War, Poland was decimated on a similar scale by a series of wars and civil wars dubbed 'the Deluge' (1648-1667). Thereafter, all of Central Ukraine was under Russian influence, and after the late 18th-century partition of Poland Volhynia too. As Poland before and the Habsburg Monarchy on the Galician parts thereafter, Russia too pursued politics of dismantling rival church structures and forced religious assimilation, paired with settlement.

[*] The Cumans were later crushed by the Mongols, a part of them merged with Moldavian Vlachs [Romanians], another were admitted again to Hungary and settled in its centre - where they retained a distinct culture and Asian looks until the 19th century.

At 9:07 PM, Blogger Editor Choice said...

Excellent and original blog. I will comeback.
I wanted just to mention an interesting site regarding about Religions. With more than 500 pages, Religion News and Articles:Religion Universe: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism (Daoism) and many others

At 4:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am genuinely glad to read this web site posts
which contains tons of useful data, thanks for providing such data.

Here is my web blog :: diets that work for women

At 11:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also known as eczema, this skin condition
may appear or worsen during pregnancy. This article may be freely reprinted
or distributed in its entirety in any ezine, newsletter, blog or website.
The skin tags will be cut with a method that is in accordance
with their location on the body and size.

My page: remedy for removing skin tags blogs

At 12:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first type is present from birth while the second type is not, but starts to
appear and proliferate as the years pass. Once you
do, you will know which type of remover to buy
that will not irritate your skin. This method typically involves some
pain or discomfort.

Also visit my site :: getting skin tags removed :
: ::

At 4:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is definately a great deal to find out about this
issue. I love all the points you've made.

my website :: atlanta auto accident lawyer


Post a Comment

<< Home